Opinion
2022-00770
02-04-2022
IN THE MATTER OF LARAE L. ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; and HEATHER L., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (DANIELLE K. BLACKABY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JOSEPH M. MARZOCCHI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. CATHERINE M. SULLIVAN, OSWEGO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (DANIELLE K. BLACKABY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JOSEPH M. MARZOCCHI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
CATHERINE M. SULLIVAN, OSWEGO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Michael L. Hanuszczak, J.), entered March 9, 2020 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, inter alia, terminated the parental rights of respondent with respect to the subject child.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, respondent mother appeals from an order, entered upon her default, that, inter alia, adjudicated the subject child to be permanently neglected, terminated the mother's parental rights, and transferred custody of the child to petitioner. Preliminarily, contrary to the contention of the Attorney for the Child, the mother properly served and timely filed her notice of appeal (see Family Ct Act §§ 1113, 1115; Executive Order [A. Cuomo] No. 202.8 [9 NYCRR 8.202.8], Executive Order [A. Cuomo] No. 202.67 [9 NYCRR 8.202.67]; cf. Matter of Fraser v Fraser, 185 A.D.3d 1444, 1444-1445 [4th Dept 2020]). Nonetheless, the order appealed from was entered following a fact-finding and dispositional hearing at which the mother failed to appear and in which her attorney, although present, elected not to participate. The order was thus entered upon the mother's default (see Matter of Tyrone O. [Lillian G.], 199 A.D.3d 1386, 1387 [4th Dept 2021]; Matter of Ramere D. [Biesha D.], 177 A.D.3d 1386, 1386 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 904 [2020]; Matter of Makia S. [Catherine S.], 134 A.D.3d 1445, 1445-1446 [4th Dept 2015]). Consequently, in this Court's prior order in response to petitioner's motion, we dismissed the mother's appeal except insofar as the mother challenges the denial of her attorney's request for an adjournment or raises any other issue that was the subject of contest before Family Court (see Tyrone O., 199 A.D.3d at 1387; Ramere D., 177 A.D.3d at 1386). Contrary to the mother's contention, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying her attorney's request for an adjournment (see Tyrone O., 199 A.D.3d at 1387; Matter of John D., Jr. [John D.], 199 A.D.3d 1412, 1413 [4th Dept 2021]; see generally Family Ct Act § 1048 [a]). The remaining issue raised by the mother is not reviewable on appeal from the order entered upon her default because it was not a subject of contest before the court (cf. Matter of Dinunzio v Zylinski, 175 A.D.3d 1079, 1080-1082 [4th Dept 2019]).